-charging relatively higher tuition for non-STEM majors in a sense discriminates against those who are less likely to choose a science or engineering degree, i.e. women (and perhaps other groups too)

-this continues to reinforce male privilege; women often internalize their economic position well before choosing a college major, so would be more likely to study to become a child psychologist or an english teacher than a mechanical engineer, an economic incentive (like a subsidy) likely won't reverse this identity.

-further, hedging economic returns to the state (in the form of future income tax from students) by offering this discount is problematic, the market is chaotic and who says we have real reason to believe STEM majors will continue enjoying a high ROI once economic tides shift?

Solution? When we needed more mechanical and agricultural research we did it once before in the form of land grant colleges. If we want to enjoy the social returns of having more STEM majors (across genders, ethnic groups, and identifications), then maybe free public higher education, across all majors and fields of research is a more accessible and fair idea.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

A recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education makes a clear case for why college costs are rising- lack of power for faculty. The interests of institutions reflect less of those shared by faculty, and more of those held by administrators and board members.

"A common theme among higher education's critics is that shared governance is to blame for colleges' profligate ways, because faculty have too much influence over how money is spent. And the critics are right: Shared governance does play a role. But it is not the "shared" part of "shared governance" that has failed; quite the opposite. The fault lies in the withering away of the shared part. Reason and data alike suggest that the largest part of the problem is that it is administrators and members of governing boards who have too much influence over how resources are used."

So if resources are allocated less to the interests of faculty, presumably for teaching, then where is the money going? Not to professor salaries, as tenure track job growth ebbs off replaced with fringe adjuncts with lower wages and benefits.

The article chalks it up to a kind of "bureaucratic entropy", where the number of administrators and staff grow faster than the institution itself, but is that enough to explain the past few decades of tuition hikes? Is this money being allocated "unproductively", and if so, what exactly does that mean?

" Establishing the legitimacy of care as productive, necessary labor — a real job — would recognize the realities of both our aging society and our service economy. It would also begin the long-overdue work of updating labor standards for the workplaces of a new century."

All that time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears that go into social reproduction- care, school, physical child-rearing, checking on old folks, making sure that everyone gets by- that stuff is important. And it's work. Hard work.